SOME OBJECT LESSONS 


AN ADDRESS 

DELIVERED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF 


The Haiiohal Civil Service Reform Leagdb 


AT BALTIMORE, MD., 

DECEMBER lo, 1903, 


BY 

HON. CARL SCHURZ. 


PUBLISHED FOR THE 

NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE, 
79 Wall Street, New York. 

1904, 









Publications of the National Civil Service Reform League 


Proceedings at the Annual Meetings of the Jiational Ciyil Service 
Reform League, 1884 to 1903 , inclusive, (excepting those of 
1888, ’89, ’90, ’98 ; out of print). 

Civil Service Reform under the present National Administration, 

By George William Curtis. (Annual Address of the President, 1885.) 
The Situation, By George William Curtis. (Address of 1886.) 

Civil Service Reform and Democracy. By Carl Schurz. (Annual 
Address of the President, 1893.) 

The Necessity and Progress of Civil Service Reform, By Carl 

Schurz. (Address of 1894.) 

Congress and the Spoils System. By Carl Schurz. (Address of 1895. 
Encouragements and Warnings, By Carl Schurz. (Address of 1896.) 
The Democracy of the Merit System. By Carl Schurz. (Address 
of 1897.) 

A Review of the Year, By Carl Schurz. (Address of 1898.) 
Renewed Struggles. By Carl Schurz. (Address of 1899.) 

Some Object Lessons. By Carl Schurz. (1903.) 

Civil Service Reform as a Moral Question. By Charles J. Bonaparte. 

(1889.) 

The Merit System in the Selection of the Higher Municipal 
Officers. By R. H. Dana. (1904.) 

The Reform of the Consular Service. By Oscar S. Straus. (1894.) 
The Appointment and Tenure of Postmasters. By R. H. Dana. 

(1895.) ' • 

The Republican Party and Civil Service Reform, By Henry 
Hitchcock. (1897.) 

The Democratic Party and Civil Service Reform, By Moorfield 
Storey. (1897.) 

An Open Letter to Hon, C, H. Grosvenor, in reply to recent attacks 
on the Civil Service Law and Rules. George McAneny. (1897.) 
The Need and Best Means for Providing a Competent and Stable 
Civil Service for Our New Dependencies. By Dorman B. 
Eaton. (1898.) 

The Choice of Correct Methods in the Administration bf American 
Dependencies. By Elliot H. Goodwin. (1900.) 

Four Reports. Prepared by the Investigating Committee of the National 
Civil Service Reform League. (1901.) 

The Situation in Porto Rico. Report of the Committee on the Civil 
Service in Dependencies, (1902.) 

What is Civil Service Reform ? By Charles J. Bonaparte. (1902.) 


GOOD GOVERNMENT 

Official Journal of the National Civil Service Reform League. 

“A Bulletin of Current Intelligence,” 

On all matters relating to Civil Service Reform. 
PUBLISHED MONTHLY at 79 WALL STREET, NEW YORK. 

ONE OOEEAR A YEAR. TEN CENTS A COPY. 




SOME OBJECT -LESSONS 


AN ADDRESS 


DELIVERED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OE 


The National Civil Service Reform Leagoe 


AT BAL^riMORE, MD., 


DECEMBER lo, 1903, 


BY 


HON. CARL SCHURZ. 


PUBLISHED FOR THE 

NATIONAL CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE, 
79 Wall Street, New York. 

1904. 



% « 


* 


\ 

A 




I 


* 



• \ • 


.> •; y- 

*.<L 


\ 







I- 


• I 


> 












« 




« 


\ • 


I 


I 


i 


4 


. i 


»<. 


4 




- ' 




/ 





p. 

Publ. 

7 Je’04 


« 




fdF\ 




Some Object Lessons. 


HON. CARL SCHURZ. 


P ERMIT me a few remarks on some aspects of civil 
service reform which, indeed, are not new, but cannot 
too often be pressed upon public attention. 

The reform of the civil service, as we advocate it, aims 
at two objects : To secure to the people an honest and 
efficient public service, and to eliminate, as much as possi¬ 
ble, the demoralizing element of patronage and political 
and personal favoritism from out political life. The first 
is accomplished by subjecting candidates for public employ¬ 
ment to examinations and probations testing their fitness 
for such employment; and the second by making such ex¬ 
aminations competitive, so as to give the fittest man the 
best chance for appointment and to exclude appointment 
by favoritism, personal or political, and thus the use of 
the office concerned as party spoil. This is not a matter 
of abstract theory, but of simple practical common sense. 

We do not pretend that civil service reform, if ever so 
successfully carried on, will prove a panacea for all the 
ills the body politic is heir to; that it will furnish a public 
service in point of efficiency and honesty absolutely per¬ 
fect; or that it will entirely banish from public life cor¬ 
ruption and the use of official power and opportunity for 
ends of private selfishness. But we do maintain that, so 
far as public employments have been subjected to civil ser¬ 
vice rules of this character, and so far as these rules have 
been enforced with faithful thoroughness, the public ser¬ 
vice has been greatly improved in point of efficiency, hon¬ 
esty, and general character. This is no longer a matter 
of conjecture, but of actual experience, recognized by every 
fair-minded man. Civil service reform has with signal suc¬ 
cess passed the period of uncertain trial. Every executive 




4 


officer is now compelled to admit—and the more conscien¬ 
tious he is, the more emphatically he will admit it—that 
those branches of the public service in which the civil ser¬ 
vice rules, and especially the competitive principle, are 
most strictly enforced, the work to be done is most atten¬ 
tively attended to and most satisfactorily performed. And 
although it has been asserted by the detractors of the 
merit system—and with an appearance of truth—that com¬ 
petitive examinations cannot test a candidate’s integrity 
of character, many years’s experience has proved beyond 
question that among the public servants who entered the 
service upon competitive examination, the number of 
cases of official dishonesty has been infinitesimally small 
compared with the number of such cases among those 
who obtained their places by mere political influence or 
favoritism. 

We have in this respect just now a most instructive 
object-lesson. You have heard of the Bristow report on 
the scandals in the Post-Office Department, and of Presi¬ 
dent Roosevelt’s memorandum accompanying the publi¬ 
cation of that report. If you have not read these docu¬ 
ments, I advise you to do so without delay. You will 
find that the President did a most meritorious thing in 
ordering an investigation of certain branches of that de¬ 
partment, in seeing to it that this investigation be thor¬ 
ough, and in publishing the results of it. You will also 
be struck with the fact that of all the public servants who 
were, in consequence of that investigation, indicted for 
fraud or other malfeasance, not one had come into the 
service by regular competitive examination. Only one had 
gone through a competition, not for entrance, but for 
promotion. All of them had originally obtained their 
appointments by political influence or personal favor. And 
it is to be noted as peculiarly significant that in several 
cases the positions to which they have been appointed, 
were excepted from the competitive rule on the ground 
so solemnly insisted upon by the patronage monger, that 
they were places of a confidential or fiduciary character 
requiring a peculiar degree of integrity and trustworthi¬ 
ness, of which no competitive examination could furnish 


5 

adequate proof, and the ascertainment of which must there¬ 
fore be left to the enlightened discretion of the appoint¬ 
ing officer—that is, to the recommendation of some influ¬ 
ential politician. And of the persons who had to leave the 
service, either by resignation or removal, for some minor 
delinquency, only three had entered it through the portal 
of competition. 

The reason for all this is simple. Men’s motives of con¬ 
duct are not seldom seriously affected by the circumstances 
under which they live. The person appointed to office 
under the old spoils system usually obtains his place as a 
reward for political service rendered or in expectation of 
some political service to be rendered. He knows that he 
has more or less powerful political influence behind him. 
As that influence put him into office, he relies upon that 
influence to keep him in office also, in case his conduct be 
not as good as it should be. And usually that reliance 
is not misplaced. I speak from personal experience. Wffien 
I was Secretary of the Interior I never removed a clerk 
for inefficiency, or habitual drunkenness, or other misbe¬ 
havior, without being rushed upon by one or more Con¬ 
gressmen, sometimes even United States Senators, who 
vociferously insisted that the delinquent must be restored 
to his place; and when I refused, which I always did, I 
was often violently denounced as an official who did not 
understand his business; and I was even now and then 
threatened with dire consequences. It requires only the 
plainest common sense to see that such a system is not 
likely to inspire the person so appointed to office with a 
keen sense of official responsiblity. It will not incite him 
to do his best or to be scrupulously correct in his conduct. 
It will rather encourage the idea that he has been put in 
office to give him a comfortable- berth, and that, if, in try¬ 
ing to make a good thing of it, he does something repre¬ 
hensible, there will be influence behind him powerful enough 
to get him out of the scrape. It thus throws tempta¬ 
tions into his way very dangerous to a character that is 
not fireproof. It is therefore not surprising that among 
the public servants so appointed there should be so many 
going astray to a more or less serious extent, as shown 


6 


by the recent report on frauds. But the real wonder is that, 
considering the seductive opportunities, there should be 
so few of them. For it must be admitted, that even under 
the spoils system of appointment a great many of the 
public servants have done their duty, as they understood 
it, and kept their integrity intact. But it must be kept 
in mind that—to the honor of human nature, be it said— 
they did this, not owing to the prevailing system, but 
in spite of its demoralizing influences. 

Now, on the other hand, contemplate the situation of 
the public servant who has entered upon his place through 
the portal of the competitive examination. To begin 
with, he is proud of owing his success not to the favor 
of anybody, but to his own personal merit; and there is 
nothing that stimulates a healthy ambition more than 
just pride of achievement. There is no “influence’’ behind 
him to keep him in his place, and to protect him against 
punishment if he misconducts himself, or to help him higher 
up. His tenure of office, as well as his chance of advance¬ 
ment, depend in a well-regulated merit system entirely upon 
his deserving. He knows that he will not have what he 
has not fairly earned, that there is no impunity for his 
failings, and that he will stand and rise, or fall and sink, 
solely according to his merit. 

There we have, then, between the two kinds of public 
servants, a difference of motive which only the blind can¬ 
not see. On the one side the public servant appointed 
'and kept in office by favor and influence, tempted by his 
circumstances to do his worst; on the other side the public 
servant who owes his place and his chance of advance¬ 
ment to a competition of merit, stimulated by his cir¬ 
cumstances to do his best. The report of the Post-Office 
Department scandals illustrates the result. 

Another object-lesson has recently been furnished illus¬ 
trating the effect of the spoils system upon the morality 
of legislative bodies—Congress in particular—and upon 
party action. The Bristow report gives us the picture 
of a Congressman from Georgia, a Democrat, Hon. Leoni¬ 
das F. Livingston, who looked for a place, or rather a 
salary, for a friend of his, without running the risk of a 


7 

competitive examination. He hit upon the ingenious plan 
of having his man appointed ’a clerk in one of the small 
post-offices, at Conyers, in his State, where a competitive 
examination was not required. The postmaster at Con¬ 
yers was willing. But the expense allowance for that 
small post-office was only $ioo. This, however, did not 
discourage the Congressman, for he had a powerful friend 
in the Department, Mr. Beavers, who had charge of such 
matters, and who is now under indictment. Mr. Beavers, 
at the instance of the Congressman, had the allowance of 
the small post-office at Conyers raised from $ioo to $820. 
The required salary for the friend of the Hon. Leonidas 
was thus obtained, and the clerk was appointed to draw 
$720 a year. Of course, the clerk had nothing to do 
at Conyers except to draw his salary, which he faithfully 
did. He was then transferred to another office, thus cir¬ 
cumventing the competitive rule, whereupon the allowance 
to the little post-office at Conyers was dropped again to 
the old figure, $100. The clerk is probably still lodged in 
a comfortable berth somewhere, laughing at the circum¬ 
vented civil service rules. 

A similar case happened in the State of Maryland. 
The Hon. Albert A. Blakeney, one of your Republican 
members of Congress, wanted a salary for Miss Ethel W. 
Colvin, without exposing her to a competitive exami¬ 
nation. He also hit upon a small post-office at Port De¬ 
posit, Maryland, the allowance of which was only $60. 
This, of couise, would not do. Then the Hon. Blakeney 
summoned Mr. Beavers to the rescue, who promptly raised 
the allowance of the little post office to $500, on account 
of ‘‘ increased business.’’ But lo! the postmaster at Port 
Deposit was not found willing to co-operate in the corrupt 
deal. He positively refused to appoint Miss Colvin to an 
unjustifiable salary, and as poor Miss Colvin could not 
thus be provided for, the ‘‘increased business” vanished 
from view and the allowance to the little post office was 
set back to the old figure of $60. If such a thing were 
possible, the postmaster at Port Deposit should be pro¬ 
moted to a higher place for distinguished bravery in the 
presence of the enemy. But it is much more probable 


8 


that the Hon. Albert A. Blakeney, Republican member of 
Congress from Maryland, has found that postmaster an 
entirely unfit person for his place, who should be removed 
for incompetency. 

The Bristow report mentions other cases of the same 
kind; but there are, no doubt, a great many similar ones 
not mentioned, and perhaps not yet discovered. Now, 
what does this mean? Here we see members of Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats—for spoils politics know no 
distinction of party—corruptly filching unnecessary and 
unjustifiable salaries from the public treasury to pro¬ 
vide for some favorites, and doing this with the aid 
of a high officer of the Government, himself appointed 
by ‘‘influence’’ and thus a creature of the spoils system. 
And there we see that officer of the Government “oblig¬ 
ing” members of Congress and “making friends” of them 
by carrying out the corrupt transactions, and that officer 
robbing the Government in his way for his own profit, 
and relying upon his friends in Congress to protect him in 
return against discovery and punishment. Mr. Beavers is 
reported to have said that he had Congress in the hollow 
of his hand; and I should not wonder if the report were 
true. At any rate, he and all the other malefactors in the 
Post-Office Department thought themselves similarly fort¬ 
ified, for according to the Bristow report they carried on 
their business of ‘‘getting rich quick” with a recklessness 
which can hardly be explained on any other than the 
theory that they expected their many obliged friends in 
Congress would prevent any investigation thorough 
enough to find them out for fear of being found out 
themselves. Indeed, there have been Congressional inves¬ 
tigations of the Post-Office Department, by the Senate, as 
well as the House, but they always stopped short of the 
evil doers who, knowing too much, held Congress in the 
hollow of their hands. So much more credit is due to 
the executive who let light into the dark places. 

Now it is to be hoped that the operation will not stop 
with the punishment of the culprits already discovered. 
In the first place all the patronage mongers in Congress 
who have seduced officers of the Government into crooked 


9 

dealings, should be exposed to public view. There are, 
it may be hoped, not many of them. But the efforts 
which are said to be making in Congress to withhold the 
whole of the papers connected with the Bristow investi¬ 
gation from public knowledge, after the notorious failure 
of Congressional investigations, create, as the matter now 
stands, a very general suspicion which the innocent ones 
should consider it a duty to themselves to dissipate as 
much as possible by exposing the guilty. It might in this 
case be in the public interest in some way to assure the in¬ 
dicted officers of immunity if they will tell all they know, 
no matter whom it may inculpate. Such a disclosure would 
serve to fortify many a shaky virtue for the future. 

But of still greater value will it prove, if the system 
be wholly uprooted which made such scandals possible. 
Every crevice and cranny in the general civil service regula¬ 
tions which makes a circumvention of them in any way 
possible, should be most carefully closed up. President 
Roosevelt has stopped many of them, but perhaps not 
all. But more, every position under the government which 
by any possibility can be put under a competitive rule 
should be rescued from the reach of spoils politics. And 
above all things, an end should be made of the most bane¬ 
ful curse of all—the unconstitutional interference of Sena¬ 
tors and Representatives with the responsible exercise of 
the executive power in making appointments—in other 
words the curse of the so-called Congressional patronage— 
a curse to the executive, a curse to the public service, 
and a curse to the Senators and Representatives them¬ 
selves. Indeed, they will secretly admit it to be a curse 
to the very men who exercise it. 

I know, indeed, how difficult it will be to do away com¬ 
pletely with this abuse, which will be a prolific source of 
demoralization so long as it exists. But it can be greatly 
mitigated as to its effect by restricting the area of patron¬ 
age to the narrowest possible limits. Thus, for instance, 
the appointment and tenure of fourth-class postmasters, 
of whom there are nearly 70,000, and whose nomination 
does not require the consent of the Senate, might be sub¬ 
jected to such civil service regulations as would relieve 


lO 


them of the feudal lordship which is exercised over them 
by members of Congress. To what scandal that lordship 
gives birth we find illustrated in the Bristow report, as 
well as in the arbitrary removal of Huldah B. Todd in 
Delaware at the mere request of the Addicks Senator. 
Indeed, in this case, which has called forth so universal an 
expression of disgust, it is maintained by civil service re¬ 
formers, among them one of the National Civil Service 
Commissioners, that the existing civil service rules actu¬ 
ally did protect fourth-class postmasters against arbitrary 
dismissal for political reason. And I do not hesitate to 
say that by confirming and practically upholding this con¬ 
struction of the rules, and by so regulating the appoint¬ 
ment of these postmasters as to withdraw them from 
Congressional patronage and influence, the President 
would, as to ultimate effect, do a greater service to the 
cause of reform than by all the other good things he has 
already done for it. 

I cannot close without presenting to you another 
object-lesson strikingly illustrating the effect of the patron¬ 
age and spoils system upon the morality of political par¬ 
ties. As you are aware, we had a municipal election in 
the City of New York a few weeks ago. The issue was 
whether the citizens of New York would continue the ad¬ 
ministration of Mayor Low, which on the whole has been 
a very good one—in fact the best we have had for many 
decades—or whether they would return to Tammany rule 
which, the world over, is reputed to be a government of 
graft and blackmail. There being ordinarily a large Demo¬ 
cratic majority in New York, Tammany could be defeated 
only by a union of the Republicans with independent and 
anti-Tammany Democrats. The Republicans entered into 
this union of forces with apparent ardor, which was no 
doubt sincere with a great many of them. But somehow 
or other Tammany triumphed in the election, and it was 
noticed that in some strong Republican districts the Re¬ 
publican vote had greatly fallen off—whether enough or 
not, to give Tammany the victory it is unnecessary to 
inquire. The falling off was an unquestionable fact. 

The leader, or rather the boss, of the Republican or- 


I 


ganization was Thomas C. Platt, a Senator of the United 
States. After the election he expressed his thoughts and 
feelings about the result in this characteristic fashion: 
“The November vote in New York is no surprise to me. 
The people did not want Low, and the Republican party 
gave to him quite as much support as he had any right 
to expect at its hands. Although (two years ago) it 
contributed over 75 per cent, of the vote that made him 
Mayor, he did not give the Republican organization three 
per cent, of the patronage. ... I did not see Mayor Low 
once from the night of his nomination to the day of 
election. He never sent for me nor asked for my assist¬ 
ance. I supported him, but without hope of his election.” 

Now contemplate this spectacle. Here is the leader of 
a great party engaged in a most important contest. The 
character of the government, the welfare of the greatest 
city of the republic, one of the greatest cities of the world, 
is at stake. But this is nothing to him. All he thinks of 
is not the interest of three and a half millions of people, 
not the prosperity and good name of one of the world’s 
most important emporiums of commerce and industry— 
what he thinks of is simply the spoils of office—patronage. 
And he actually does not blush to say so. The candidate 
representing the cause of good government in that contest 
has not given his organization more than three per cent, of 
that patronage. He does not assert that the appointments 
of the Mayor have been bad, injurious to the public wel¬ 
fare. He cannot assert this, for they are known to have 
been uncommonly good. But that is not what interests 
him. In his opinion not enough of the spoil of office has 
been given to his henchmen. The good government candi¬ 
date has not even during the campaign “ sent for him” to 
ask for the party-boss’s assistance, and to bargain with 
him about his share of the spoil in case of victory. That 
was reason enough for the party-boss to give the cause 
of good government only so much support as its can¬ 
didate could expect,” and to contemplate defeat with per¬ 
fect equanimity. For what he cared, the great city and its 
important interests might go to Tammany unless he was 
assured of a good percentage of the spoil. Did you ever 


hear of a more cynical confession? And the man who 
made this confession has for many years been the almost 
omnipotent leader of the Republican party in the State 
of New York, who ruled the Legislature according to his 
political interests, whose favor or disfavor made Republi¬ 
can politicans rise or fall, and who controlled the most 
important part of the Federal appointments in that State 
even under the present administration. He is said to be 
now succumbing to a new State-boss stronger than he. 

We must at least thank him for having furnished us 
a most instructive object-lesson as to the effect the spoils 
system, the patronage-trade, is apt to exercise upon the 
leadership and the moral spirit of political parties—for the 
Hon. Thomas C. Platt is by no means the only potentate 
of his kind. There are others in other States fully as 
powerful and fully as vicious. There will be such in every 
State if the demoralizing influences which are bred and stimu¬ 
lated, among other causes, by the spoils system, are much 
longer permitted to corrupt and degrade political parties. 
The general, or even an extensive, use of the public offfces 
and employments as party spoil cannot fail to make our 
party-contests, which should be only struggles for the 
prevalence of different principles and policies, in great- 
measure scrambles for public plunder; it is almost cer¬ 
tain in the long run to make the most selfish and un¬ 
scrupulous element in the party organization, which is 
usually the most alert and active, the most influential 
one, and then that leader of the party who succeeds in 
becoming the general distributor of the spoil, will, as pay¬ 
master, easily develop into the boss with a well-organized 
machine of spoils-fed henchmen behind him. The party 
leader will then be, not what he should be, a leader of 
opinion, but a mere captain of organization; the organi¬ 
zation will be held together by what is picturesquely called 
“ the cohesive power of public plunder,” and it will be con- 
‘-.rolled by the ever alert element of the habitual spoils 
hunters. This means the utter demoralization of party 
activity, making the party unfit to be an agency of good 
democratic government—in fact, making it a danger to 
democratic institutions. 


^3 

This development becomes so threatening that it is 
the highest time to put a stop to it; and one of the things 
necessary to put a stop to it is the destruction of the 
patronage business by placing the public service out of 
the reach of spoils politics. This can be done by putting 
all—I say absolutely all—the public employments to which 
the civil service rules can, under the Constitution, be ap¬ 
plied, under those rules; and this is to be supplemented 
by such action on the part of the Executive as will estab¬ 
lish, concerning the offices beyond the reach of legislation, 
rules for his own guidance based upon the merit princi¬ 
ple, which will altogether make an end of the usurpation 
of the appointing power by members of the legislature, 
and thus destroy the patronage. This may have a very 
radical sound; but deep-seated and far-reaching evils de¬ 
mand thorough-going remedies, and we must not indulge 
in any delusion about this: So long as public offices are 
a matter of patronage to any extent, so long will that 
patronage exercise a demoralizing influence and constitute 
a most serious danger to the working of our democratic in¬ 
stitutions. I say this as one who has had much experience 
of public life, official as well as unofficial, and I have 
reached this conclusion as the result of long and careful 
observation without the slighest bias of partisanship or 
pride of opinion. 

What I have said of our National Government applies, 
of course, no less to the governments of our States and of 
our municipalities—especially those of our large cities in 
which spoils-politics have already wrought uncalculable 
mischief and threaten to work more. Indeed the govern¬ 
ments of our large cities have become a matter of national 
concern, and no man can cafl himself a consistent friend 
of good government in general and a faithful defender 
of the Nation’s welfare and good name, who would not 
apply the same rule that he thinks good for a department 
official or revenue clerk, also to our police officers, firemen 
and school-teachers. He who condemns the evils of the 
spoils system in the National Government and condones 
them in the home politics, which most nearly touch the 


4 


people, will have no reason to complain if his sincerity is 
suspected and he is called a sham reformer. 

I am aware of the objection to all this : that democratic 
government is necessarily government through political 
parties; that without the spoils of office as rewards of party 
service, political parties cannot be held together; and that, 
therefore, the abolition of the patronage would strike at the 
vitality of democratic government. This is a fallacy, con¬ 
clusively proved to be such by our own history as well as by 
the existence of political parties without patronage in other 
countries. At the beginning of our own Federal Govern¬ 
ment there was no distribution of offices as party patron¬ 
age, and yet there were political parties according to the 
difference of opinion on principles and politics. And those 
parties were very spirited and active. In England there 
was once political patronage in our sense, and it brought 
forth the characteristic crop of profligacy and corruption 
to an alarming degree. The patronage was thoroughly 
abolished and has not existed there for a considerable 
period. But there are political parties as before, only far 
purer in morals and more public-spirited in their activity. 
In Germany there are political parties without the slight¬ 
est vestige of party patronage. Who will dare to say 
that only the citizens of this great republic have become 
so depraved as to be incapable of forming and maintain¬ 
ing political parties without being paid for it with the 
spoil of office? The man asserting so outrageous a thing 
should be denounced as a wicked slanderer of his country 
and people. Evidently there will be political parties after 
the abolition of the patronage, but they will indeed be 
different from the parties we have now. They will no 
longer be held together by “the cohesive power of public 
plunder,” but by the cohesive power of certain principles 
and policies, which their members hold in common, and 
for the prevalence of which they will together exert them¬ 
selves. There will be party leaders, but they will be leaders 
of opinion, not mere captains and paymasters of organiza¬ 
tion. As to that matter of leadership, I am indeed not 
sanguine enough to expect that our model boss. Senator 
Thomas C. Platt, will, by the abolition of the patronage, 


15 

be made a public-spirited and statesmanlike party chief. 
It is much more probable that he will not be a party 
chief at all. He and his kind will have to go out of the 
boss-business, for, there being no more spoil to distribute, 
they will have nothing more to do. Nor do I think that 
thereby the public good will suffer any loss. Their places 
will be taken by men who have something valuable to 
say concerning the public interest and who care for it. 

I do not predict that the abolition of the patronage 
will ^ve us absolutely ideal parties and ideal leadership. 
But it will relieve our political parties of one of their most 
serious defects, and bring them much nearer to the stand¬ 
ard of what they should be. Neither do I think, as I have 
already said, that civil service reform, be it ever so thor¬ 
ough, will cure all the ailments of the .body politic, for 
there are evils other than the spoils system, which seri¬ 
ously threaten our democratic institutions. But I do 
believe that civil service reform, by destroying the patron¬ 
age and thus eliminating from political life one of those 
active elements of sordid selfishness, which divert political 
parties from their true functions, will render those parties 
much more fit to deal with other important problems, 
and thereby greatly facilitate their successful solution. 

While not indulging in the delusion that all the diffi¬ 
culties and obstacles standing in our way will yield at 
once, or that we can clear them at one great jump, we 
have good reason to be encouraged in our efforts gradu¬ 
ally to overcome them. Civil service reform is happily 
not a partisan affair. It is neither Republican nor Demo¬ 
cratic in a party sense. On each side of the dividing line 
it has its friends as well as its adversaries. Each party 
has at times declared itself emphatically in its favor, and 
certain elements in each party have sedulously co-operated 
with similar elements in the other party to nullify those 
declarations. In spite of their incessant and wily manoeu- 
vers we have steadily gained ground, now more slowly 
and then more rapidly. 

The progress of our cause has sometimes received a 
powerful impulse from events which startled the popular 
conscience. We are in the presence of such an event now. 


6 


The corruption and rottenness recently revealed as hav¬ 
ing long existed in some parts of our Government ma¬ 
chinery, and frankly denounced by the President himself 
in his message, are sufficiently alarming to shake the 
many well-meaning people who so far have put aside 
our appeals with apathetic unconcern, out of their indiffer¬ 
ence. The most confirmed optimists can now hardly fail 
to open their eyes to the fact that, in the description of 
existing abuses and evil tendencies, we have r^ather under¬ 
stated than overcolored the truth, and that those abuses 
and evil tendencies, unless counteracted by thorough re¬ 
forms, are certain to produce still greater mischief and 
shame. We can now confidently call upon all friends of 
good government in the Republic, at least to inquire into 
and study the measures we advocate, with open minds. 
It would be strange, indeed, if the shocking object-lessons 
staring us in the face to-day did not quicken the pace 
of our advance. 


PUBLICATIONS OP 

THE NEW YORK CIYIL SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION 


The Beginning of the Spoils System in the National Gorern- 
ment, 1829-30, (Reprinted, by permission, from Parton’s “ Life 
of Andrew Jackson.”) Per copy, Scents. 

Term and Tennre of Office. By Dorman B. Eaton. Second edition, 
abridged. Per copy, 15 cents. 

Daniel Webster and the Spoils System. An extract from Senator 
Bayard’s oration at Dartmouth College, June, 1882. 

Address of Hon. Carl Schurz in opposition to the bill to amend the 
New York Civil Service Laws, commonly known as the “Black 
Act.” May 6, 1897. 

Annual Reports of the Civil Service Reform Association of New 
York for ’94, ’95, ’96, ’97, ’98, ’99,1900, 1901, 1902 and 

1903, Per copy, 8 cents. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 

United States Civil Service Statutes and Revised Rules. 

State Civil Service Reform Acts of New York and Massachusetts. 
The Selection of Laborers. (In English and German editions.) By 
James M. Bugbee, late of the Massachusetts Civil Service 
Commission. 

Report of Select Committee on Reform in the Civil Service (H. R.), 

regarding the registration of laborers in the United States Service. 

Report of same Committee regarding selection of Fourth-Class 
Postmasters. 

Civil Service in Great Britain: and its Bearing upon American 
Politics. By Dorman B. Eaton. Per copy, 25 cents. 

The Civil Service—The Merit System—The Spoils System, By 

Edward Cary, (igoi.) 

Superannuation in the Civil Service. Report of a Special Com¬ 
mittee. (1900.) 

The Purpose of Civil Service Reform, By Henry Loomis Nelson. 

(Reprinted, by permission, from the Forum, for January, 1901.) 

The Organization of the Modern Consular Service, By George 
McAneny. (Reprinted, by permission, from the Century Magazine, 
for February, 1899.) 

The Relation of Civil Service to Municipal Reform, By Carl 
Schurz. Published by the National Municipal League. (1895.) 
Bibliography of Civil Service Reform, Published by The Women’s 
Auxiliary to the C. S. R. Ass’n. (1900.) Per copy, 10 cents. 
SyUabns for the Study of the History of Civil Service Reform, 
By Lucy M. Salmon. Published by the Massachusetts State Federa¬ 
tion of Women’s Clubs. (1903.) 


(A CHARGE IS MADE ONLY WHERE THE PRICE IS STATED.) 

Orders for the publications will be filled by Elliot PI. Goodwin, 
Secretary, 79 Wall St., New York, or by G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 27 and 
29 West 23d St., New York. 






OFFICERS, 1903-190P LIBRARY ll^lllllllll^ 

0 028 070 925 6 


PRESIDENT: 

DANIEL C. GILMAN. 


VICE-PRESIDENTS: 


CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, 
JOSEPH H. CHOATE, 
GROVER CLEVELAND, 
CHARLES W. ELIOT, 

HARRY A. GARFIELD, 
ARTHUR T. HADLEY, 

SECRETARY: 

ELLIOT H. GOODWIN. 


HENRY CHARLES LEA, 
SETH LOW, 

FRANKLIN MACVEAGH, 
GEORGE A. POPE, 

HENRY C. POTTER, D. D., 
P. J. RYAN, D. D. 


TREASURER: 

A. S. FRISSELL. 

ASST SEC’Y: 

HENRY G. CHAPMAN. 

COUNCIL: 

CHARLES J. BONAPARTE, Chairman. 


WILLIAM A. AIKEN, 
ARTHUR H. BROOKS, 
CHARLES C. BURLINGHAM, 
SILAS W. BURT, 

EDWARD CARY, 

CHARLES COLLINS, 

WILLIAM E. CUSHING, 
RICHARD HENRY DANA, 
JOHN JOY EDSON, 

HENRY W. FARNAM, 
WILLIAM DUDLEY FOULKE, 
RICHARD WATSON GILDER, 
JOHN H. HAMLINE, 

HENRY W. HARDON, 

H. BARTON JACOBS, 
ROBERT D. JENKS, 

JOHN F. LEE, 

WILLIAM G. LOW, 

GEORGE MCANKNY, 


CLINTON ROGERS 


HARRY J. MILLIGAN, 
SAMUEL H. ORDWAY, 
WILLIAM POTTS, 

H. O. REIK, 

CHARLES RICHARDSON, 
HENRY A. RICHMOND, 
CARL SCHURZ, 

EDWARD M. SHEPARD, 
F. L. SIDDONS, 
MOORFIELD STOREY, 
LUCIUS B. SWIFT, 
HENRY VAN KLEECK, 
W. W. VAUGHAN, 
HERBERT WELSH, 
EVERETT P. WHEELER, 
CHARLES B. WILBY, 
ANSLEY WILCOX, 

R. FRANCIS WOOD, 
MORRILL WYMAN, JR. 
WOODRUFF. 


Offices of the League^ 

No. 79 Wall St., New York. 





